All journalists and all scientists make mistakes. I scarcely get through a week without producing at least one blunder: it's what happens when you have to process a lot of material in very little time. What makes the difference between honest journalism (or honest science) and obfuscation is whether you are prepared to admit your mistakes and correct them when they have been pointed out.

Climate change deniers make a great song and dance whenever a minor mathematical error or a mistake in calibrating some satellite readings is discovered by one of the scientific bodies they hate, and they continue to make that song and dance long after it has been corrected. But nothing and no one can put them right. However thoroughly their nonsense is debunked, they keep repeating it. Instead of admitting their errors, they launch furious attacks on the people who point them out and compound them with even more obfuscation.

Which brings me to our current contestant. A fortnight ago I warned the Washington Post's George Will that he would have to raise his game if he wanted to win the prestigious and beautiful trophy, fashioned by master craftsmen in mid-Wales, which we are offering as just part of our fabulous award.

The problem isn't that he failed to make the requisite errors or failed to check his sources: he excelled in both respects. It's that he simply doesn't pack enough into his columns. John Tomlinson, the Michigan Mauler managed to produce 18 outrageous howlers in fewer than 500 words, establishing a magnificent lead which could turn out to be unassailable. I know that Will has it in him to win, but he's just not working hard enough.

You may remember that in his previous column on the subject Will wrote that "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979".

I did something that he had failed to do: contacted the Arctic Climate Research Center to ask if this were true. So did an editor at the Washington Post. The answer in both cases was the same: "No, it is not correct. I don't know where they are getting that. As of today, there are 1.43m km sq less Arctic sea ice than this same date in 1979. (Roughly the size of two Texas-sized states)."

But heck, what do they know? In his new column on Friday, Will maintained that he had a far better source for what the Arctic Climate Research Center says than the Arctic Climate Research Center. It's a news website called Daily Tech.

But never mind: Will now asserts that his column "accurately reported what the center had reported". No, it didn't. It accurately reported what the Daily Tech said the center had reported.

Will also claimed that his first column "contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged."

I take this personally. I took him up on four points of fact. In fact the only reason I didn't list any others is that these were just about the only facts in his column (see above).

But at least George Will has given us a perfect description of his methods: "meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes." Sadly, however, he was talking about someone else, the very thorough and meticulous Andrew Revkin of the New York Times.

For sheer perseverence in the face of the evidence, you can't beat the man (well Christopher Booker and Melanie Phillips can, but they're superhuman). But I'm sorry to say that this effort, though determined, is even more feeble than the last one. It's true that most of the claims he makes are false, but he's simply not making enough of them. Come on Mr Will, shake a leg!